Movie Review

By: Mike LeChevallier

Posted 12/23/2005 - 02:38:44 PM by hometapes:
 is this: "as he attempts to find out who is to blame for the accidental loss of his young son" really what damon's character was about? i don't remember that at seemed to actually be about trying to balance making huge strides in the world's energy struggles, western culture in the middle east, etc. and trying to cope with the loss of his son and the following disintegration of his marriage... did we see the same movie?
Posted 12/23/2005 - 06:39:00 PM by MLeChevallier:
 The editor felt it necessary to alter my original sentence, which is as follows: "Matt Damon, in a part I would have thought ideal for someone with more good versus evil balancing capabilities, someone like Ed Norton (see: all his films, even Keeping the Faith), surprisingly is the film’s most audience-friendly character, tying up loose ends through verbal retaliations at the accidental loss of his young son, and monologues that always seem to be devoid of research but full of heart."
Posted 12/28/2005 - 09:54:14 AM by jhitting:
 Jesus, no wonder you got edited. Sentences that long belong in Faulkner novels. Plus, this film was definitely better than C+; you are a troll, my friend. I just saw it this weekend and it's my favorite film of the year, hands down. C+ should be reserved for things like Harry Potter, not Syriana.
Posted 12/28/2005 - 07:29:05 PM by MLeChevallier:
 It's not the length edit that irritated me, it's that, basically, the whole meaning of the sentence was shifted around.
Posted 12/29/2005 - 10:18:12 AM by jhitting:
 Yeah that happens. When I used to write for the Sun back in the day it was like they basically tore my soul from my body. I'd read the articles I wrote and I might as well have not written a word of them.